bridge_enqueue

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already signal a mutating operation, and the description adds useful behavioral nuance: idempotency via idempotency_key prevents duplicate tasks on retry. It also explains that tasks are enqueued pending worker claim, which is meaningfully beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences: the first states the main action, and the second covers the critical payload/content distinction plus idempotency. No redundant wording or schema repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers the required invocation pattern and the most important optional safeguard (idempotency_key). With an output schema present and the remaining optional parameters largely self-explanatory or schema-described, the tool is adequately complete for an agent to call correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description clarifies the key design choice between structured payload and string content, and explains idempotency_key's purpose. However, schema coverage is only 50%, and the description does not compensate for undocumented fields like enqueued_by or max_attempts.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (add/enqueue), a specific resource (a task in a channel's work queue), and the downstream behavior (held for a worker to claim). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bridge_claim or bridge_complete.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context: use this tool to enqueue tasks, distinct from claiming or completing them. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.